Truth derives
from the comprehensive study of the whole of events, I believe. Causation is complex and reaches far back from
and all around any present event. The U S
violence complex is composed of: Corporations,
Pentagon, Congress, White House, Mainstream Media, Education, Racism, Economic
Inequality, Secrecy, Surveillance, Empire—the US National Security State.
Together these ten newsletters from the critical
thinking perspective of nonviolence provide a comprehensive understanding of violence
in the US.

Our
Neighbors: “Factor by which a U.S. gun
death is more likely to be a suicide than a homicide: 1.8. Estimated number of firearms in the average
U.S. gun-owning household in 1994: 4.5.
Today: 8.2. Minimum number of
shooting incidents in the U.S. in the past year in which the shooter was a dog:
2. In which the shooter was a toddler:
50.” “Harper’s Index.” Harper’s
Magazine (Jan. 2016) p. 9.

US SYSTEM OF VIOLENCE by Dick Bennett

It’s so
pervasive we’re not aware of it, the acceptance of violence as our way of life.
And we don’t let the better examples of other nations disturb our delusion of
superiority.

Even on the
most seemingly harmless occasion.
Recently the Fayetteville, AR, Public Library organized a laser tag game
as part of the Teen summer Reading Finale Party. Hardly a “tag” game. The kids carried toy automatic rifles, and
they ran about the library “to sneak up on their opponents.”

The systems or
rather the system of violence that
constitutes the USA at home and abroad is familiar to anyone who has read a
book by Noam
Chomsky. Long ago he saw the connections, despite the
constant propaganda of US exceptionalism (we
are a good people even in mass killing).
.And he made the crucial analysis of US physical and structural violence--of gun,
institutional, and war violence. (Corporations/profit, Pentagon/war
preparation, initiation, and perpetuation, Congress/jingoism, money for 800
military bases around the world, White House, Mainstream Media, Education,
Imperialism, Exceptionalism, Racism, Secrecy, Surveillance, VIOLENCE Complex.)

Martin Luther
King, Jr., more slowly but eventually equally surely came to the same
conclusion. At first he was immersed in
resistance to the physical and structural violence of the Jim Crow South—from
lynchings to voting restrictions--that kept blacks in virtual slavery in the
South. But during the 1960s he, along
with many other citizens, concluded that the Vietnam War was morally repugnant
and must be ended. On April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in Manhattan, King
accused the US of being the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

But that was
not all. His multi-layered critique of
the war included consideration of the war’s harm to the poor in the US and in
Vietnam and all the poor everywhere.
Because of the “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and
militarism,” the US was not the moral beacon to the world its patriotic
publicists had proclaimed for over 200 years.
A fundamental change was necessary—from loyalty to nation to loyalty to
humanity as a whole.

Were King alive
today, he would be warning us of the fourth giant quadruplet: increasing C02 and its consequences global
warming and climate change. As yet only
the structural violence predominates, a violence of omission more than commission,
but that violence will probably be as or more globally lethal as nuclear
war. As with the racial system, the war
system, and the economic system, the US is the major engine of climate change: on every corporate, financial, governmental,
and social level the US encourages growth and consumption and obstructs
preventive action despite decades of scientific truth-telling. The physical violence is already coming in
the deaths of thousands of refugees.

Of the numerous
responses needed to reduce the lethality of the quadruplets, reality--truthful
education--is fundamental to decreasing the use of violence in conflict and for
building cultures of positive peace hallmarked by just and equitable structures.

References:

“Library Laser Tag.” AD-G
(8-8-15).

Appy, Christian G. American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our
National Identity. Viking, 2015.

Pilisuk and Rountree.
The Hidden Structure of Violence: Who Benefits from Global Violence and
War. Monthly Review P, 2015.

President Obama and Congress have begun negotiations over the
federal budget. Not on their agendas: moving away from militarism in
domestic and foreign policy. That’s why AFSC is hosting a conversation about
real solutions for building peace in 2015.

Increased militarism seems to be U.S. policymakers’ response to challenges and
conflict, whether it be at the U.S.-Mexico border or in municipal police
forces. Often, these decisions are driven by corporations pursuing profits
instead of what is most effective or best for human rights.

From the ground up, AFSC activists are working to shift the narrative and offer
alternatives to violence through our vision of shared security and restorative
justice.

Join AFSC staff members working on issues of mass incarceration, foreign
policy, and border militarization as they respond to various budget proposals
with analysis and recommendations for change.

Tell President Obama:“Don’t wait for Congress to pass gun control legislation. Stand up to the
NRA and take immediate executive action to help stop gun violence.”

Add your name:

Dear Samuel,

In recent weeks, more than 300,000 CREDO activists have signed
petitions to pressure Congress to take real action on gun control
legislation. CREDO activists have also made more than 6,700 phone calls to
Republican leaders, telling them it’s time to respond to gun violence with
action, not just "thoughts and prayers."

While it’s important to keep holding Congress accountable for
their failure to act, there are fortunately some things the White House can
change without waiting on Congress. President Obama has the power to
use executive authority to make major improvements to our gun laws.

We know the president is tired of Congress offering thoughts
and prayers to victims of gun violence but doing nothing to prevent it. We
know that he is open to using his authority when Congress fails to act. The
more of us who show our support, the more likely he’ll be to action now, even
in the face of the NRA’s aggressive opposition.

After the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
2013, President Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control. Our friends
at Everytown for Gun Safety are urging him to take five more executive
actions to clarify existing rules and more strictly enforce current law:

·Define who is “engaged in the business” of
selling guns: Close a loophole that allows private gun dealers, some
of whom sell thousands of guns a year, to sell guns without performing
background checks.

Find Out How You Can Get Involved.
Stand With Us against Gun Violence.

OPPOSING GUN
VIOLENCE in Arkansas-- and Texas

Governor Hutchinson’s
Response to Racial Violence

From The Ark Times 7-1-15 By Acacia Roher

Goosebumps
rose on my arms as I walked into Bethel A.M.E. on Sunday night for a
prayer vigil in remembrance of the nine black worshippers killed in Charleston,
S.C., last week. The sanctuary was packed, people pressed together in the foyer
outside and the overflow hall had standing room only. I later learned that
1,000 people attended the service. I was glad to see a good number of white
folks and people from a wide variety of faith traditions both in the audience
and among the list of speakers. Many of the messages focused on healing from
the tragedy through love and reconciliation. Only a few speakers took things to
a deeper level to discuss the need to work together for justice and an
equitable society, and the necessity that people move beyond prayer and
dialogue into action.

There was
one speaker in particular who I could not get behind. Gov. Asa Hutchinson
approached the lectern to a standing ovation, began with some heartfelt
comments about the tragedy and appreciation for those gathered, then spoke
about his respect for the way the victims' families were responding. He praised
them for not expressing "anger, hatred, or a desire for revenge." He
also praised the family of slain Rev. Daniel Simmons for allegedly wanting to
keep politics out of the discussion to focus on forgiveness and healing.
Through his emphasis, Hutchinson played directly into the narrative of
respectability politics, where white people tell people of color how they
should respond to a situation and condemn responses from others in the
community experiencing anger, rage and other expressions of grief.

Respectability
politics plays into the illusion that we can move forward without discomfort,
sacrifice or upheaval. It comes directly from white fears of being held
accountable. Yes, the response of the victims' families shows strength and a
depth of love that is incredible to witness, but Hutchinson used it for his own
ends. Don't get too loud, "tolerance and faith can overcome
violence," he said.

Hutchinson
also spoke about his tenure as a U.S. attorney for Arkansas in the 1980s,
during which he prosecuted the notorious white supremacist group the Covenant,
the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. He said he thought that taking down the
Covenant meant that Arkansas would no longer face these kinds of issues, then
acknowledged that there is still a need to root out ongoing "racial
bigotry and hatred." His focus on overt, militant white supremacy betrays a
lack of understanding of systemic racism, which does not require any outward
expression of racial bigotry to enact.

Hutchinson
himself has been involved in reinforcing systemic racism in our state and
nation. After he headed George W. Bush's Drug Enforcement Administration, an
agency that has been a major player in the mass incarceration of people of
color, Hutchinson became a top official at the Department of Homeland Security,
which has a history of racial profiling and discrimination. In his first six
months as governor, he signed bills into law that cut funding for libraries,
shrank programs for impoverished elderly residents, and increased barriers to
TANF assistance, all of which disproportionately affect communities of color.
Hutchinson has not been willing to strongly support policy that would
materially improve the lives of people of color.

The
Charleston murders were most assuredly political in nature. The killer said so
himself. To avoid discussing the political nature of the situation and act as
if racism is only the purview of a few bigots directly obscures the systemic
racism that creates the conditions for this kind of tragedy.

There can
be no peace without justice, Rev. Ryan Davis reminded us at the vigil. And
there will be no unity or healing until we transform the structures that
benefit the few at the expense of the many. In the lyrics of a gospel song that
A.M.E. Bishop Samuel Green so passionately shared, "There's a storm out on
the ocean and it's moving this-a way." Those who are serious about justice
must prepare. In the A.M.E.'s plans to engage Americans in facing the reality
of racism, I hope it will be able to help people move beyond the rhetoric of
individual bigotry and hatred to a more nuanced understanding of power and
oppression.

OPPOSING GUNS:
GLIMPSES OF THE STRUGGLE IN ARKANSAS—AND TEXAS

The leader
in Fayetteville has been Prof.
Steve Boss. My google search of Steve Boss and guns on
campus turned up many items going back to 2011, but strangely nothing about
recent organizing, when I know much can be reported, for example about 3rd
National Vigil for Victims of Gun Violence.

Sidney
Burris, Gunsense Newsletter

(Burris is
another faculty member at the University of Arkansas who has spoken against the
present gun regime.)

Gandhi, Guns, and Nonviolence

A new posting on Gandhi,
guns, and nonviolence. Because of a single comment that Gandhi once made while
in South Africa, the gun-radicals will often claim him as a kindred spirit. I
wrote up a correction to that misuse of Gandhi's message. You'll find it
here: http://bit.ly/GandhiGunsense. Sidney
Burris, 5-8-15

Gunsense

02/08/2015

CHARLIE
COLLINS & THE NRA RIDE INTO ARKANSAS

Collins
HB 1077, the bill that would have armed faculty and staff on Arkansas college
campuses, failed in committee on Thursday, February 5. The vote split, 10-10,
needing eleven votes to pass. The bill would have replaced Act 226 (2013),
which offered the Boards of Trustees the sensible option of deciding for
themselves whether their campuses would allow guns. After all, the Boards are
in the business of governance, and they have acquitted their task admirably
over the years. We have a public higher-education system that we all
justifiably point to with pride. And it's getting stronger every year, despite
the struggles facing higher education across the country, and particularly in
the south.

In fact,
during the two years that the law was on the books, every Board voted to
prohibit their faculty and staff from carrying concealed handguns. The will of
the people most directly affected by this legislation spoke clearly and with
one voice: no amateur carry on our campuses.

Most of us
suspected that the bill would resurface in some form after Thursday's defeat.
Two pieces of information have appeared recently that are important.

This bill was supported by the NRA, the gun-industry's most powerful
lobby. In their announcement, the NRA both praised Representative Collins,
"who worked tirelessly to promote this legislation." The NRA also promised to work with
Representative Collins to further their plans to place guns on college
campuses.

Representative
Collins, in an interview Friday, said that he might re-work the current bill,
reaching out to current members of the Education Committee, or as he said,
"I might just add in some things expanding concealed carry to other
locations that have nothing to do with colleges," a move that could
justify his sending it to a committee that is stacked with Republicans
sympathetic the NRA's agenda. That wouldn't be difficult to do.

Let's make
absolutely certain that we understand what is happening here: if Collins can't
get the Boards of Trustees to opt into his law, which they have unanimously and
resolutely refused to do, then he'll take away (in HB 1077) the Boards' power
to govern themselves and their colleges; and if he can't convince his committee
to approve his bill, then he'll change the committee to one that conforms to
his and the NRA's agenda.

Isn't there
a relevant story about the little boy who, when things didn't go his way, took
his ball and went home?

Except
Representative Collins and the NRA aren't going home. They're moving into the
state of Arkansas, lock, stock, and barrel, and I'm not speaking figuratively.

Governmental
over-reach, centralized power, and the beltway agendas of the NRA, one of the
nation's most powerful lobbies—these are the watchwords that govern this kind
of legislative behavior.

And if this
legislation is successful, our state will be the poorer for it.

For more
information as it becomes available, follow me on Twitter, @sidburris, and
check by my Facebook page, Gunsense.

You
want to profile America’s mass killers? No need at all for the FBI or the
national security state. You don’t have to secretly read anyone’s emails or
check their phone metadata. You don’t need to follow them on Twitter. All you
have to do is narrow down the possibilities in a logical way by looking at
the history of mass killing in recent years. That means, as a start, leaving aside half
the population, since women make up close to 0% of American mass shooters.

So, start with men. Admittedly, that’s a pretty broad category. Still, among
men, you can narrow the field fast. Begin with age. Generally, mass killers
are young. Unfortunately, this category isn’t quite as blanket as the
no-woman rule. Just recently, in what looked like a copycat mass killing -- a
repeat of the 2012 shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater -- a
mentally unstable 59-year-old white man in Lafayette, Louisiana, with a chip
on his shoulder aboutwomen (as well
as blacks), opened fire in a
theater showing the new Amy Schumer hit, Trainwreck, a film
drawing female audiences, and killed two women. Similarly, in February, a
disturbed and mentally unstable 36-year-old white man, barred from owning
guns, carried out a
mass killing of seven in the tiny Missouri town of Tyrone. Nonetheless, when
you’re conjuring up the next mass killer, think young man (16-24) and think
white.

Now, we’re getting somewhere. One more obvious thing: look for someone
carrying a gun, generally obtained quite legally --
most likely a semi-automatic pistol or an assault rifle -- or come to think
of it, three or four or more weapons and lots and lots of ammo. Now, given
the 300 million or so
guns floating around this country and thespread of
“right-to-carry” laws that let anyone bring lethal weaponry just about
anywhere, this may not narrow things down quite as much as we’d like. But it
should be helpful. And yes, there are other factors, too, that might aid you
in setting your sights on the next mass killer. As Karen Greenberg, the
director of the Center on National Security at
Fordham Law and TomDispatch regular, points out today, these would
undoubtedly include feelings of hopelessness and anger, a history of mental
instability, depression, and drug or alcohol abuse.

In the grips of a much overblown panic about
ISIS-inspired terror in the U.S., the government, Greenberg reports, is about
to spend a pile of taxpayer money doing a version of what I just did. Here’s
my guarantee: it will cost you a boodle, most of which, as she makes clear,
won’t go where it might do some good -- that is, to helping unnerved or
disturbed young men. And I’ll also guarantee you one more thing: the massed
thinking and resources of the national security state won’t do much better
than I’ve done above when it comes to the problem of identifying lone-wolf
killers. But that state within a state will,
as ever, emerge from the experience more powerful and more entrenched. And,
as novelist Kurt Vonnegut might once have said, so it goes. Tom

Imagine that you’re in the FBI and you receive a tip -- or
more likely, pick up information through the kind of mass surveillance in
which the national security state now specializes. In a series of tweets, a
young man has expressed sympathy for the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, or
another terrorist group or cause. He’s 16, has no criminal record, and has
shown no signs that he might be planning a criminal act. He does, however,
seem angry and has demonstrated an interest in following ISIS’s social media
feeds as they fan the flames of youth discontent worldwide. He’s even
expressed some thoughts about how ISIS’s “caliphate,” the Islamic “homeland”
being carved out in Syria and Iraq, might be a place where people like him
could find meaning and purpose in an otherwise alienated life.

The Politics of Resentment: A Genealogy by Jeremy Engels. Penn State UP, 2015. 232 pages

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

“What is the relationship between rhetoric and violence? Jeremy
Engels addresses that question in the aftermath of the 2011 shooting spree that
seriously wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed several others. Drawing on
wide-ranging scholarship in political theory and American public discourse, he
argues that political elites hijack
justified popular resentment against oppressive social systems and redirect it
against powerless individuals, thereby creating the potential for violence.
Provocative in its understanding of democracy, compelling in its case studies
of Richard Nixon and Sarah Palin, and challenging in its call for reinvigorated
rhetorical criticism, this is a book that makes us think.”—David Zarefsky, former president of the National Communication
Association and of the Rhetoric Society of America

“There may be no more pressing problem in contemporary U.S.
political culture than a flourishing politics of resentment, which divides
citizens, stalls policy, and excuses injustice. In The Politics of
Resentment, Jeremy Engels helps readers understand how resentment has arisen
as a political force and how scholars and citizens may respond. Toward these
ends, The Politics of Resentment deftly weaves together
history, criticism, and theory. Engels argues eloquently that we cannot ‘ban
resentment from the public sphere,’ but he suggests ways to productively turn
resentment toward disclosing structural
violence, thereby helping achieve justice and promote a public good.”—Robert Asen, University of Wisconsin–Madison

In the days and weeks following the tragic 2011 shooting of nineteen
Arizonans, including congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, there were a number of
public discussions about the role that rhetoric
might have played in this horrific event. In question was the use of violent
and hateful rhetoric that has come to dominate American political discourse on
television, on the radio, and at the podium. A number of more recent school
shootings have given this debate a renewed sense of urgency, as have the
continued use of violent metaphors
in public address and the dishonorable state of America’s partisan gridlock.
This conversation, unfortunately, has been complicated by a collective cultural
numbness to violence. But that does not mean that fruitful conversations should
not continue. In The Politics of Resentment, Jeremy Engels picks up
this thread, examining the costs of
violent political rhetoric for our society and the future of democracy.

The Politics of Resentment traces the rise of especially violent
rhetoric in American public discourse by investigating key events in
American history. Engels analyzes how resentful rhetoric has long been used by
public figures in order to achieve political ends. He goes on to show how a
more devastating form of resentment started in the 1960s, dividing Americans on issues of structural inequalities and
foreign policy. He discusses, for example, the rhetorical and political
contexts that have made the mobilization of groups such as Nixon’s “silent majority” and the present Tea Party possible. Now,
in an age of recession and sequestration, many Americans believe that they have
been given a raw deal and experience feelings of injustice in reaction to
events beyond individual control. With The Politics of Resentment,
Engels wants to make these feelings of
victimhood politically productive by challenging the toxic rhetoric that takes
us there, by defusing it, and by enabling citizens to have the kinds of
conversations we need to have in order to fight for life, liberty, and
equality.

Jeremy
Engels is Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at the
Pennsylvania State Univ.

VIOLENCE and
the Rupture of Traditional REPUBLICAN CONSERVATISM USA by Dick Bennett

A recent report estimated that 25% of US
males are angry and impulsive—and armed.
Add to that ominous percentage the numerous who are ignorant of important
social and political subjects. To that
add the imperial aggression of 800 foreign US military bases and permanent
war. These conditions partly explain our
Congress today, and they lead us to caution regarding the label “conservative.” Whereas only a few decades ago
“conservative” was represented by the reasonable, compassionate Senator Robert
Taft, who supported programs for unfortunate people, the sick and impoverished,
today Congress is controlled by the extreme rightwing, hating “government” even
when accomplishing good for the people.

The traditional Republican Party resisted
military adventurism. Senator Robert Taft consistently warned of the “awful catastrophe of war.” But Ronald Reagan sent US Marines to their useless deaths
in Lebanon and in the White House he illegally oversaw a secret CIA army
trained in Honduras to invade Nicaragua.
But the deepest rupture in traditional Republican conservativism was caused
by George W. Bush in his June 2, 2002, speech at West Point, where he asserted
unconstitutionally the US’ right to preemptive attack and preventive war
anywhere in the world.

The Democrats have often been no
better. Dr. Strangelove, don’t forget, was a satire of Democratic Party
administrations. And then President
Obama disastrously continued the Bush doctrine by asserting unconstitutionally
the US’ right to kill anybody, anywhere in the world, including US citizens, merely
suspected of being a terrorist. Both
Parties should be seeking allies within the other Party who are alienated by
the violence of secrecy, surveillance, militarized police, expanding empire,
and permanent war.

Juan
Cole, Op-Ed: The mentally imbalanced individual
who hunted down UC Santa Barbara students and knifed three and shot six of
them to death, wounding with gunfire seven more used a semi-automatic handgun.
The most popular such weapon is a Glock. It is not an automatic weapon,
meaning you have to squeeze the trigger each time to fire. But it is much
easier to get off many shots one after another than in the case of a
traditional pistol. The magazine for the Glock seventeen has seventeen
rounds; one can get a high capacity magazine of thirty three rounds.

Four
decades after Henry Kissinger left office, his influence on the national
security state can still be widely felt, as the United States engages in
declared and undeclared wars across the
globe. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state
in the Nixon and Ford administrations and helped revive a militarized version
of American exceptionalism. We speak with Greg Grandin, author of the new book,
Kissinger’s Shadow: The Long Reach of
America’s Most Controversial Statesman.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s been nearly 40 years
since Henry Kissinger left office, but his influence on the national security
state can still be widely felt, as the United States engages in declared and
undeclared wars across the globe. Kissinger served as national security adviser
and secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and helped revive
a militarized version of American exceptionalism.

During
his time in office, Henry Kissinger oversaw a massive expansion of the war in
Vietnam and the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia. In Latin America,
declassified documents show how Kissinger secretly intervened across the
continent, from Bolivia to Uruguay to Chile to Argentina. In Chile, Kissinger
urged President Nixon to take a, quote, "harder line" against the
Chile’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende. On September 11th,
1973, another September 11th, Allende was overthrown by the U.S.-backed general,
Augusto Pinochet. In Jakarta, Indonesia, Kissinger and President Gerald Ford
met with the Indonesian dictator, General Suharto, to give the go-ahead to
invade East Timor, which Indonesia did on December 7, 1975. The Indonesians
killed a third of the Timorese population. Kissinger also drew up plans to
attack Cuba in the mid-’70s after Fidel Castro sent Cuban forces into Angola to
fight forces linked to apartheid South Africa. While human rights activists
have long called for Kissinger to be tried for war crimes, he remains a
celebrated figure in Washington and beyond.

Joining
us now is Greg Grandin, author of the new book, Kissinger’s Shadow: The
Long Reach of America’s Most Controversial Statesman. Well, Greg Grandin is
a professor of Latin American history at New York University. His previous
books include Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten
Jungle City, The Empire of Necessity: Slavery, Freedom, and
Deception in the New World and Empire’s Workshop.

We
welcome you back to Democracy Now!, Professor. Greg, why did you
take on Kissinger?

GREG GRANDIN: I felt like that, to the
large degree, he’s gotten away with it, right? He’s 92 years old, and there’s
been a rehabilitation of Henry Kissinger and supposedly what he stands for, not
just by the political right, but by the—across the political establishment.
Hillary Clinton embraced Kissinger last year in a review in The
Washington Post of his last book. Samantha Power went to a Boston Red
Sox-Yankee game with him, and they—

AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations.

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, liberal hawk, who
wrote—who came to—who made her name writing about genocides, including three
genocides that Kissinger is implicated in. And they came together at a
Yankee-Red Sox game and bantered. I feel like there’s a way in which Kissinger
embodies the national security state. Now,
let me say, obviously, there’s another critique of Henry Kissinger based on all
of the acts—you know, Christopher Hitchens’ famous book, The Trial of
Henry Kissinger—and I think that that’s useful, but I think focusing on
Kissinger as a war criminal misses the larger—his larger importance in the
endurance of the national security state and the continuity, from Cambodia and
Vietnam and Laos to Iraq and beyond.